Reports are now surfacing that the New York Islanders has traded a conditional 2nd round pick in either 2014 or 2015 to the Boston Bruins in exchange for Tim Thomas. The rationale behind the move is for the Islanders to be above the salary floor before tomorrow's deadline.

Knowing that Thomas is only under contract until the end of the year and has no intention of playing hockey this year please answer this:

Wouldn't it be smarter for the Islanders to find a current free agent and sign them to a deal for the remainder of the year for the amount needed to meet the salary floor?? This would them an actual player to use if needed and would have saved them a 2nd round pick.

The amount they are under the cap is irrelevant in my eyes. What they did is basically pay the Bruins a 2nd round pick for the pleasure of paying Tim Thomas to sit on his can.

They could have paid anyone on the FA list any amount to sit on their can and be cap compliant and it woudn't have cost them a draft pick.

I just don't get it.

Wait, my brain kicked in. Under the new CBA a team has the ability to keep part of the salary of a player during the trade. If that is case, perhaps the trade is on paper to make the Islanders compliant but the Bruins are still paying the actual contract?? If that is the case the 2nd round pick is 'interest' for allowing the contract to sit on the Islanders books for the rest of the season.

Beans....the Isles are apparently far from stupid! Have a read of the following article from which i've quoted just one of the important parts. Bob Mckenzie adds more in a "tweet" quoted at the bottom of the article......

Before you flip out about the fact that the Islanders just traded a second round pick in exchange for the right to not play a guy, remember that it's a conditional pick. And, according to Bob McKenzie, the condition is that Thomas plays. If he does (or if the Islanders trade his rights again), the Bruins get the Islanders' second. If he doesn't, the Islanders just acquired him for free.

yeah, the fact that this is conditional based on Thomas playing a single game with NYI this season, otherwise its free.... not a bad move by NYI. I'm going to assume that they have a very strong feeling that he will not play this year, therefore they get this for free.

Beans - I"m also going to assume that they inquired about other players that may be available that are in the final year of 4.5M+ contracts, and there was nothing to be found. NYI might have made a play for a player that would actually be on their roster, but they might have also had to trade away a roster player in order to acquire. This way they keep everything that they have now, get to the cap floor for nothing,

If the only goal was to meet the cap floor than signing a free agent and healthy scratching him all year meets the need with zero risk

Yes, but then they actually have to pay said player, no? Whereas, i'm assuming they aren't actually paying Thomas a nickel since he's not around. So this costs them nothing out of their pocket, just on the cap.

Guest0918 ( )

Posted - 02/08/2013 : 00:57:37

NYI can choose to "Toll" Thomas' contract at the end of that year. If they do he would still be under contract to the Islanders next year. Nabokov is a UFA at the end of this year so it is a very good possibility that they would do this and play Thomas next year. Thomas would most likely play next year to try and earn an olympic roster spot. If this happens Boston would get the 2nd round pick and NYI would get a Vezina caliber goaltender for 1 year for pretty cheap.

I didn't hear about the Visnovksy angle but i certainly didn't miss the part about the Isle's being able to carry it over to next year. That was in the article i linked to if you'd read it.

As for Visnovsky, he's apparently reported already from what i heard so it can't be to do with him not actually showing up. I'm guessing the Islanders have been in communication with him and have agreed to move him to a contender at or before the deadline. I don't believe it'll be an offseason move as he's 36 and prob isn't likely to play much longer. I wouldn't doubt he told the Islanders that he wasn't interested in playing for a team which is still rebuilding at his age and would likely retire and stay in Russia unless they agreed to deal him to a contender. For the Isles, i'm sure they want to recoup the 2nd rounder that they paid for him?

I didn't hear about the Visnovksy angle but i certainly didn't miss the part about the Isle's being able to carry it over to next year. That was in the article i linked to if you'd read it.

As for Visnovsky, he's apparently reported already from what i heard so it can't be to do with him not actually showing up. I'm guessing the Islanders have been in communication with him and have agreed to move him to a contender at or before the deadline. I don't believe it'll be an offseason move as he's 36 and prob isn't likely to play much longer. I wouldn't doubt he told the Islanders that he wasn't interested in playing for a team which is still rebuilding at his age and would likely retire and stay in Russia unless they agreed to deal him to a contender. For the Isles, i'm sure they want to recoup the 2nd rounder that they paid for him?

why on earth would NYI want to toll this contract until next year? TT will be 40 years old, won't have played hockey for a year, and will carry a 5M cap hit in a year when the cap contracts by 7M. And if they play him, they'll have to give up a 2nd round pick. I'm not sure why TT would want to play for NYI either.

NY made a very smart move, and took advantage of the normally inherent disadvantages of a 35+ contract (cap hit counts against you regardless of whether or not the player plays). They get away with adding 5M to their cap (to get to the floor, give them breathing room around the floor, whatever), likely give nothing up, and pay zero dollars to the player in the process. For a team struggling to get to the floor, its a very good move.

As for goaltending for NYI next year, they'll be wide open - assuming Nabokov will not resign there, TT will not play, and DiPietro will be an amnesty buyout. Perhaps Luongo could go back to where it all started. And VAN could get Grabner back

Nice dream Nux. If TT wouldn't want to play in Long Island why would Bobby Lou??

I still think it's a really odd move but after hearing all the reports it makes sense. There is still risk involved but clearly not that much of a risk.

Here is one thing that few people have discussed. It took less than a month for two GM's in the NHL to work together to circumvent the spirit of the CBA. Think of what they will be able to do over the next 8-10 years.

So, from what i understand, the Isles were at or above the floor with Visnovsky reporting, but this gets them a good chunk higher. The draft pick is interesting. It's HIGHLY unlikely that Thomas EVER suits up for NYI. The funny thing is, this helps Boston, which was up against the cap limit as well and arguably more than the Isles!

The part i find incredible is that Tim Thomas apparently still plans on coming back to play next season? That's what's been reported at least. He's certainly not the oldest guy out there, but at this age and a year off, it'll be intersting to see where he goes and how well he does.

Guest6482 ( )

Posted - 02/08/2013 : 10:14:27

I'm a lifer Islanders fan and I'm not saying this is a great move but basically it ensures they don't violate the salary cap floor, as long as he sits and does nothing the Islanders don't pay him and they don't lose the draft pick nor does he take a roster spot but on paper is a cap hit. If he hits the ice or the isles trade him they will lose the pick. Its simply a roster/cap move. Its really not a big deal IMO

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Reports are now surfacing that the New York Islanders has traded a conditional 2nd round pick in either 2014 or 2015 to the Boston Bruins in exchange for Tim Thomas. The rationale behind the move is for the Islanders to be above the salary floor before tomorrow's deadline.

Knowing that Thomas is only under contract until the end of the year and has no intention of playing hockey this year please answer this:

Wouldn't it be smarter for the Islanders to find a current free agent and sign them to a deal for the remainder of the year for the amount needed to meet the salary floor?? This would them an actual player to use if needed and would have saved them a 2nd round pick.

Nice dream Nux. If TT wouldn't want to play in Long Island why would Bobby Lou??

I still think it's a really odd move but after hearing all the reports it makes sense. There is still risk involved but clearly not that much of a risk.

Here is one thing that few people have discussed. It took less than a month for two GM's in the NHL to work together to circumvent the spirit of the CBA. Think of what they will be able to do over the next 8-10 years.

I don't agree that salary cap rules were violated, or even circumvented. TT's full cap hit still counts against a team (either BOS or NYI), and his suspension without pay is due to TT not wanting to play this year, nothing else. NYI and BOS both had a need (cap-wise, not player wise), and a trade was made. Should TT suit up for NYI, BOS will get something in return. Seems above board to me.

How is it different from any other team that wants to get rid of an onerous contract and trading it away?

The difference is an oneruos contract being traded has a player still avaiable to play. This, at least to me, is no different than trading a player on long term injury. There is a reason that players like Savard and Pronger can't be traded.

The 'spirit' of the salary cap is to have as level a playing field as possible. This creative accounting is against that spirit, at least in my humble opinion. Just because this situation happened to help both teams and no one else cares about it doesn't mean it won't open a whole other can of worms.

Who's to say that Luongo doesn't retire but tells Vancouver he is planning to sit out the next 8 years. They can then trade him for nothing and pass his contract around to anyone who wants it. It means teams can buck the floor and the ceiling of the cap.

That's not right, is it?? Is that not against the spirit or intention of the salary cap??

The difference is an oneruos contract being traded has a player still avaiable to play. This, at least to me, is no different than trading a player on long term injury. There is a reason that players like Savard and Pronger can't be traded.

The 'spirit' of the salary cap is to have as level a playing field as possible. This creative accounting is against that spirit, at least in my humble opinion. Just because this situation happened to help both teams and no one else cares about it doesn't mean it won't open a whole other can of worms.

Who's to say that Luongo doesn't retire but tells Vancouver he is planning to sit out the next 8 years. They can then trade him for nothing and pass his contract around to anyone who wants it. It means teams can buck the floor and the ceiling of the cap.

That's not right, is it?? Is that not against the spirit or intention of the salary cap??

To my knowledge, the player is available to play - he just refuses to do so. It is different from LTIR players to be sure - LTIR players physically cannot play, and as you say, you are not allowed to trade them.

If Luongo were to do that, he would be suspended and both his cap hit and his salary would come off the books - he is not a 35+ contract. Therefore, there would be no advantage to passing his contract around as cap savings.

However, you do raise an interesting point about a potential solution to the early retirement issue - instead of retiring in 6 years or whatever, Luongo (or Hossa or Kovy or OV) could simply refuse to report for the remainder of his playing life, and in that event both cap hit and salary would disappear from the VAN books once the team suspended him. No penalty to VAN for the early retirement, and same thing for Luongo.

I don't know if this is preventable - the CBA worried a great deal about stopping teams from circumventing the cap, but in your case, the player has to help his team circumvent the cap. I'm not sure how a CBA would be able to cover this odd circumstance.

A little off topic, but what if the Blackhawks continued on the tear they're on and approaching the deadline, Crawford breaks his leg. Then lets suppose Emery either plays like garbage or, better yet for this example, gets hurt as well. Would Chicago roll the dice and pull in their 3rd stringer, one that i have absolutely no idea who he even is? Or, would they possibly offer up a pick and/or prospect for Thomas (if they can fit him under the cap) and try to talk him into joining a team which at the time, would be the runaway favorite for the cup??? Secondly, would Thomas consider this???

Total hypothetical situation, but one in which this trade might actually pay off for NYI if it's not already a useful deal for them!

A little off topic, but what if the Blackhawks continued on the tear they're on and approaching the deadline, Crawford breaks his leg. Then lets suppose Emery either plays like garbage or, better yet for this example, gets hurt as well. Would Chicago roll the dice and pull in their 3rd stringer, one that i have absolutely no idea who he even is? Or, would they possibly offer up a pick and/or prospect for Thomas (if they can fit him under the cap) and try to talk him into joining a team which at the time, would be the runaway favorite for the cup??? Secondly, would Thomas consider this???

Total hypothetical situation, but one in which this trade might actually pay off for NYI if it's not already a useful deal for them!

In that case... if CHI were smart, they'd want to talk to TT and see if he would play with them before trading for him. And even then its a huge gamble, TT hasn't played a single game for a year, and likely isn't even in hockey shape. How long would it take him to be productive?

But I think its moot... if TT isn't going to play for BOS - a legitimate cup contender already - why would he choose CHI? He's clearly made up his mind to not play this year period.

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanIn that case... if CHI were smart, they'd want to talk to TT and see if he would play with them before trading for him. And even then its a huge gamble, TT hasn't played a single game for a year, and likely isn't even in hockey shape. How long would it take him to be productive?

But I think its moot... if TT isn't going to play for BOS - a legitimate cup contender already - why would he choose CHI? He's clearly made up his mind to not play this year period.

As i said, totally hypothetical. Question i have is, are teams allowed to talk to him if they did want to inquire about a trade prior to making the deal???

This move was a total no lose for the Islanders. They only give up a pick if Thomas plays and he would be there best goalie by far. They Dont pay him a penny because he is suspended for not playing, and since he was over 35 when he signed this contract the cap hit still counts for this season. They also get the option of keeping Thomas for next season if he wanted to play for them under the rules of the CBA. The Islanders can make him honor the final year of his contract or allow he to become a UFA. I havent said it many times if ever but this was a smart move be the Islanders.

Guest4315 ( )

Posted - 02/09/2013 : 14:04:00

TT said before that he doesn't even practice in the offseason. "When your as good as me you don't need to."

Guest2707 ( )

Posted - 02/09/2013 : 15:17:58

The only real bad outcome for the Islanders would be if they decided to use him and he got injured real bad. They would be obligated to pay him and he would still count against the cap. While the Bruins would recieve that second round pick.

Guest0625 ( )

Posted - 02/10/2013 : 18:29:21

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanHowever, you do raise an interesting point about a potential solution to the early retirement issue - instead of retiring in 6 years or whatever, Luongo (or Hossa or Kovy or OV) could simply refuse to report for the remainder of his playing life, and in that event both cap hit and salary would disappear from the VAN books once the team suspended him. No penalty to VAN for the early retirement, and same thing for Luongo.

Everything in your post I agree with except this one. If they bail and the team suspends him, it still counts on the cap. That's why NYI can be off the cap floor.

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanHowever, you do raise an interesting point about a potential solution to the early retirement issue - instead of retiring in 6 years or whatever, Luongo (or Hossa or Kovy or OV) could simply refuse to report for the remainder of his playing life, and in that event both cap hit and salary would disappear from the VAN books once the team suspended him. No penalty to VAN for the early retirement, and same thing for Luongo.

Everything in your post I agree with except this one. If they bail and the team suspends him, it still counts on the cap. That's why NYI can be off the cap floor.

"(c) For Players that are suspended, either by a Club or by the League, the Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club."

This rule applies to all SPC's that are not "35+" contracts. Luongo's contract is not a 35+ contract, as he was not over 35 when he signed the deal. Therefore, if Luongo were to be suspended by his team for not reporting (ie, not fullfilling his contract), he would not be paid, and his contract would not count against the cap.

TT is a 35+ contract, and 35+ contracts have special treatment in the CBA - effectively, the cap hit counts against the team as regardless of their status (active, suspended, retired) or if/where they are playing. This is why his contract cap hit counts against the cap, even though he is suspended.

In fairness, this is the rule from the old CBA, and I cannot find the text for the new one online. However, I don't recall this rule being changed or the wording altered in the new CBA, so I assume it is the same.